2.1 Online journaling, questions of purpose and structure

Considerable overlap exists between the literature on journaling, e-portfolios and blogging (Strudler & Wetzel, Reference Strudler and Wetzel2011; Joyes, Gray & Hartnell-Young, Reference Joyes, Gray and Hartnell-Young2010, Moores & Parks, Reference Moores and Parks2010; Imhof & Picard, Reference Imhof and Picard2009; Jafari, Mcgee & Carmean, Reference Jafari, McGee and Carmean2006; King & LaRocco, Reference King and LaRocco2006; Fenwick, Reference Fenwick2001). Journals can be defined as “the permanent records of thoughts and ideas that an individual has processed and clarified through the act of writing or otherwise recording their experiences” (King et al., Reference King and LaRocco2006: 1). In the last decade, paper-based journaling has increasingly been superseded by the use of blogs. Blogs have been used for developing students’ composition skills in their foreign language (Bloch, Reference Bloch2007), encouraging reflective learning strategies (Hourigan & Murray, Reference Hourigan and Murray2010), harnessing collaborative learning opportunities (Godwin-Jones, Reference Godwin-Jones2003) or as a means of improving learners’ written fluency (Fellner & Apple, Reference Fellner and Apple2006). According to Moon (Reference Moon2006), journals have multiple purposes, many of which will be at the heart of this study, including the recording of experience, the facilitation of learning from experience, the development of critical thinking, the ownership of learning, the enhancement of problem-solving skills, the assessment of learning, and the improvement of writing. Of relevance to this study, journals can also be used for personal development, for therapeutic purposes, for fostering creativity, or for supporting communication in a group. In any case, a clear purpose for the use of an e-portfolio or online journal fosters learner engagement as tutors can provide clear guidelines, and students see the aims and benefits of the exercise (Imhof and Picard, Reference Imhof and Picard2009; King and LaRocco, Reference King and LaRocco2006). In addition, aligning the purpose to the students’ contexts helps the design of learning activities that are adapted to each specific situation (Joyes et al., Reference Joyes, Gray and Hartnell-Young2010). These learning activities are best served by structured journals as opposed to unstructured ones. Structured journals can help students reflect on appropriate issues thus facilitating the progression of their learning. Structure can take the shape of double entry journals, set exercises or questions, set format for the journal itself or portfolio format (Moon, Reference Moon2006). On the other hand, a balance of prescribed aspects and an element of self-selection can work best as prescription provides clear guidance while self-selection enhances student engagement (Imhof and Picard, Reference Imhof and Picard2009).

2.2 Online journals and language learning

In foreign language teaching, journals are used for different purposes, usually according to the language teaching approach. In the structural approach, the emphasis is on the mechanics of the language and journal writing aims to practise correct language form. In the communicative approach, the focus is on the content and the development of communicative writing within a meaningful context (Orem, Reference Orem2001). Teachers avoid excessive correction and journals are read for content alone, not for form (Orem, Reference Orem2001). The curriculum is developed around an authentic exchange which is adapted to the students’ context (Auerbach, Reference Auerbach1992). Students themselves can decide the purpose of the writing and the target audience. This study shows that online journaling actually offers sufficient flexibility to marry the two approaches thus creating a rich learning experience.

Journaling can be daunting for the novice writer (Fenwick, Reference Fenwick2001) who needs some preparation and encouragement to get started and to sustain initial efforts, particularly when the writing is carried out through a foreign language. Students want to know that a genuine reader is at the other end of their writing. Responses need to be given early to help guide the writing process. Online journaling allows for feedback to be given on a continuous basis (King & LaRocco, Reference King and LaRocco2006). Responders can assist (Fenwick, Reference Fenwick2001) by affirming and thereby motivating the journal writing activity or by providing guidance through probing, extending and connecting.

In terms of the choice of system or tool for an online journal, students gravitate towards software that promotes social learning. It helps them connect with each other (Garrett, Reference Garrett2011; Jafari et al., Reference Jafari, McGee and Carmean2006) and develop new understandings. Social learning, or learning from one another, can help students improve the quality of their work and it can be motivating to know that others may see their site (Garrett, Reference Garrett2011; Orem, Reference Orem2001). It has been found that student engagement is greater when systems promote a sense of ownership (Plaisir, Hachey & Theilheimer, Reference Plaisir, Hachey and Theilheimer2011) and allow learners express their individuality by giving them the freedom to choose the layout, content, visual template, topics and artefacts (Garrett, Reference Garrett2011; Jafari et al., Reference Jafari, McGee and Carmean2006; Joyes et al., Reference Joyes, Gray and Hartnell-Young2010). In a nutshell, the technology needs to be easy to use and responsive to what the learner wants to do with it (Garrett, Reference Garrett2011).

2.3 Fostering reflective writing through feedback

Reflective writing is an important aspect of students’ journaling. It helps learners to make sense of their environment and focus on areas of new learning. This process is underpinned by the elucidation of opinions, beliefs, feelings and the questioning of assumptions and practices (Hiemstra, Reference Hiemstra2001; Hughes, Reference Hughes2010). Reflective writers “think critically about successes and failures, extract ideas and information from a variety of sources, and recognise when current information can be used in the future” (Dalal, Hakel, Sliter & Kirdendall, Reference Dalal, Hakel, Sliter and Kirkendall2012: 75). At a level which is probably beyond most undergraduate students on a mobility programme, reflective writing also involves theorising about the task and forming hypotheses (Biggs, in Leung and Kember, Reference Leung and Kember2003; Boud, Reference Boud2001).

Reflective writing needs to be understood and developed in students, particularly for those who are product rather than process driven as they tend to lack the skills inherent to deep learning (Denson, Reference Denson2011). Several approaches to the scaffolding of students’ deeper reflection are suggested in the literature. For instance, reflective activities can be scaffolded during class time by asking them to consider the reasons why reflecting is valuable, how reflective writing is different from other forms of writing (Moon, Reference Moon2006) or how a particular assignment will equip them with a set of skills relevant to other courses or to professional life (Denson, Reference Denson2011). Deeper reflection can also be facilitated by introducing a framework (or rubric) to describe the various levels of reflection, encouraging students to stand back from themselves (Hatton and Smith, Reference Hatton and Smith1995), using examples demonstrating deeper reflective activity, working with others, introducing exercises that involve reflection on the same subject matter from different viewpoints – people, institutions, disciplines (Moon, Reference Moon2006).

A number of authors suggest rubrics and frameworks to support the assessment of reflective writing. Stevens & Levi (Reference Stevens and Levi2013: 13) describe rubrics as tools that “divide an assignment into its component parts and provide a detailed description of what constitutes acceptable or unacceptable levels of performance for each of those parts”. Rubrics therefore include a task description, a list of criteria, gradations of quality and descriptions for each gradation. Rubrics are more useful when they reveal problems experienced by students, thus giving them an indication of ways to improve on their weaknesses and achieve an exemplary performance (Andrade, Reference Andrade2000). Rubrics help to use teachers’ time more effectively and clarify their expectations in relation to their students’ performance. By using rubrics as a communication tool, teachers are able to provide students with timely, detailed and specific feedback. The list of criteria inherent in a rubric, the gradations of quality and their description help students reflect on patterns of recurring problems or ongoing improvement in their work (Stevens & Levi, Reference Stevens and Levi2013). The use of rubrics can enhance students’ motivation as they develop a clear sense of what has to be achieved.

Several types of rubrics can be found in the literature. Some of the more interesting ones include Dalal et al. (Reference Dalal, Hakel, Sliter and Kirkendall2012) who propose a six ratings rubric with the higher ratings attributed to higher levels of analysis and future applications of past experiences. However, the different ratings appear to be overlapping somewhat. Hatton and Smith (Reference Hatton and Smith1995) constructed a framework with four clearly different levels of reflective writing. The basic level is referred to as descriptive writing, with no discussion beyond description. The next level up is descriptive reflection where the description of events and most reflection is given from one perspective; the third level is dialogic reflection where the work demonstrates a “stepping back” from events and actions with an effort to include alternative explanations; the highest level is critical reflection where the writer demonstrates that actions and events are “located in and influenced by multiple historical and socio-political contexts” (Hatton & Smith, Reference Hatton and Smith1995: 49).

Rubrics are used both for formative and summative assessments. It is debatable whether journal writing should be assessed and if so, whether to assess the product or the process and according to what set of criteria. Some have argued that reflective writing should not be marked as students should be able to express themselves freely (Dillon, 1983 in Moon, Reference Moon2006; King & LaRocco, Reference King and LaRocco2006). It is often assumed that feedback, reflective writing, and selection of work artefacts are easily understood by students and tutors (Joyes et al., Reference Joyes, Gray and Hartnell-Young2010). In fact, considerable time, skill and effort are required in providing feedback, guiding students in the learning process (Moores & Parks, Reference Moores and Parks2010) and promoting reflective practice and overall student engagement (Plaisir et al., Reference Plaisir, Hachey and Theilheimer2011). Technical and pedagogic support are essential (Joyes et al., Reference Joyes, Gray and Hartnell-Young2010; Plaisir et al., Reference Plaisir, Hachey and Theilheimer2011) and require adequate resourcing (Struddler & Wetzel, Reference Strudler and Wetzel2011). The next section concerns itself with aspects of methodology.

3.1 Research paradigm and research design

An interpretivist paradigm underpins this research as it is concerned with understanding the linkages between participants’ behaviour and their context (Cassel & Symon, Reference Cassel and Symon2004). It follows the principles of a case-study design. The enquiry is of a qualitative nature with two consecutive cohorts of students (9+6). It seeks to ascertain and understand the contextualised processes, subjective views and multiple realities of the students as they engage with their experience, and interact with their coordinator through their online journal while abroad. A timeline of the different phases of the study is provided in Figure 1.

Fig. 1

Phases of the study

3.2 Data types

In order to facilitate the enquiry into students’ experience in the context of their academic experience abroad, data included the collection and analysis of documentary evidence, observation, questionnaires, interviews and a focus group.

The data yielded is illustrated in Figure 2. The top two quadrants support the implementation section of this study and show the nature of the documents and observations obtained. The bottom two quadrants outline the themes derived from the interviews, focus group and questionnaires following data analysis. These themes structure the findings section.

Fig. 2

Research methods used and outcomes of data analysis

Observations relate to the tracking of students’ regularity of journal entries, their length, content, depth of analysis, types of media posted, and language used (French or English). This was recorded in an Excel document on a monthly basis. Other observations included the coordinator’s diary of her own interactions with her students.

Documentary evidence refers to the students’ blog entries as well as archives of the coordinator’s feedback comments. This was useful to enable the researcher to see an evolution in the nature and format of the commentaries.

On completion of all monthly activities, students were asked to complete a questionnaire (see Appendix 2) which combined open and closed questions, with some negative statements to avoid automatic answers and improve validity. The questionnaire included an invitation to take part in follow-up interviews or a focus group. Twelve out of the sixteen students returned the questionnaire completed, over a 70% response rate, yielding a first set of rich data and raising a number of further queries. These were explored through semi-structured interviews and a focus group.

Out of the first cohort of nine students, three, one male and two female, came forward for interviews. In the second cohort, four out of the six students attended the focus group, one male and three females. The seven students had experience of three different types of universities in five cities. Two of the universities were very large, anonymous and complex institutions. Two were medium-sized universities that provide good student support. One was a small institute of technology, also with readily available student support. The interviewees’ context, from the first cohort, can be described as follows:

• ∙ Margot showed great determination and independence by choosing to go to one of the large, anonymous universities on her own rather than with one or two other members of her cohort.

• ∙ Walter spent the year in a similar university but adjusting to the Erasmus experience was challenging for him – as evidenced in his blog entries.

• ∙ Denise was in a medium-sized, supportive university but had openly declared during the in-class setting up of the blog, her dislike for computers. At the time, she did not have a Facebook account. Understandably, she did not welcome the prospect of an online journal.

In the second cohort, the four students who participated in the focus group were as follows:

• ∙ Kim and Cathy were in a medium-sized university with good support.

• ∙ Gerry and Alexandra were in a small institute of technology, with good student support but with a very small number of Erasmus students in the institute.

Holly, Terry, Louis and Yvonne are students who completed the questionnaire but did not take part in an interview or focus group.

The interviewees in both cohorts were asked questions on:

1. 1. the extent to which the challenges of the Erasmus experience had an impact on their engagement with the blog

2. 2. the extent to which the blog’s three main objectives had been achieved, i.e. to

   • a. support their reflective writing

   • b. support their writing in French

   • c. keep in touch with the home institution.

3. 3. the extent to which they valued feedback and the preferred format for the feedback.

The interviews and the focus group were transcribed. These and the questionnaires were analysed using an inductive approach. The learning outcomes of the module served as a loose “thematic framework” (Bryman & Burgess, Reference Bryman and Burgess1993). The categories that emerged out of the surveys (questionnaires, interviews and focus group) were as follows: learning of French, reflective writing, feedback, monthly activities, social learning, and technology. These categories underpinned the analysis of the findings.

At the outset of the study and for ethical reasons, students were informed that the data collected would be kept confidential though the data collection process would not be anonymous as the researcher was an active participant and she wanted to be able to relate participants’ responses on the questionnaire to her observations of participants’ blog input. She was therefore also in a position to follow up on specific points raised by different students in their questionnaire through subsequent interviews. In order to encourage students to be as honest as possible, the researcher assured students that she would not be involved in the summative assessment of their country notebook. In seeking consent from participants to use observations, opinions, actions and utterances for the purpose of the study, assurance was given that the identity and location of contributing individuals would be concealed.

4.1 Research question 1: Can online journaling enhance students’ language learning and reflective activity?

Reflective writing in a foreign language is challenging. Because of this, the first cohort of students were initially allowed to write in English and French before being encouraged to write in French only. Denise stated “the option to do it in English or French is good as sometimes writing so much in French can become overwhelming” but then later admitted that had she not been given the option, she would just have done them in French. On that basis, the second cohort of students was required to write in French from the outset. Regardless of their level of French, many report that the blog is a great way to practise and improve their writing competency particularly as opportunities to practice their writing skills in their university context are often limited. Holly stated “writing the blog in French not only helped improve my written French but also boosted my confidence”. For Gerry, the most positive aspect of the online journal was “having a platform to create written pieces of work in French that can be corrected” because as Kim explained, “in our daily Erasmus life, we wouldn’t have been writing that much”. Alexandra agreed and added “that was the only time I got to write any French during the study period. It definitely helped to see where I needed to improve”. In contrast to the majority of students’ positive appraisal, Terry felt “there were better ways to use my time considering I only had one year abroad in France to learn and reach a good level of French”. He introduced his comment by stating “I’m not a fan of diary writing”, thus reminding educators that online journaling is not suitable for all learning styles.

The monthly activities were designed to “challenge the students to analyse the information and to form answers supported by their understanding of the information” (Cooper, Reference Cooper2006: 74). Students’ views on reflective writing can be summarised through some key quotes, all from different participants. It was “tough but (...) intriguing” (Holly) and “I enjoyed reflecting if I was comfortable speaking about the topic” (Denise). Invariably, each student struggled with at least one of the monthly activities, finding the theme difficult to approach, not really understanding it (Kim) or as expressed by Alexandra, “most challenging was the actual written passages as in some cases (not all), it was hard to link personal experience with the topic being asked”. In these situations, the reflective writing became more of a chore and the main focus would turn to meeting the set deadline. Nevertheless, it was “a good opportunity to think on what had happened and reflect on certain aspects such as my progress, culture shock, etc. I would never have written reflectively throughout Erasmus otherwise” (Alexandra). Similarly, Yvonne stated, “it was a useful way to write about certain topics that I would not have talked about if I had not been given the brief” and if “some of the briefs were more difficult than others (...) it challenged me to write about different topics in French”. Gerry noted that “reflective writing made me more analytical about what was going on around me”. This was corroborated by Margot who felt the blog was “extremely beneficial” as she “was encouraged to reflect deeper on [her] experiences and to analyse them”. Similarly, reflective activities “made me think differently about what I have experienced and what I perceived to be the ‘French life’” (Holly). Her peer (Louis) adds:

Finally, reflective writing in the online journal can also be a useful place for venting as Denise stated “once I knew someone else knew, I was like, OK, that’s off my chest now” and Gerry referred to the therapeutic value of the blog as it enabled him to “broadcast experiences that weren’t so good”. On delving into his meaning of “broadcast”, he explained he “just wanted somebody else to know what is going on”. The challenge for the Erasmus academic coordinator is then to find the balance between giving direction to a student or being more a listener and use the potential of peers and self as responders (Moon, Reference Moon2006), acknowledging the comment while bearing in mind that it may just be a release of temporary anxiety that may not require further intervention. Overall, merely writing about their concerns was reassuring. “We knew that someone from DIT was reading it, so if there was a problem, at least they would know about it” (Alexandra).

It is evident from the findings that the online journal was considered a valuable exercise by the vast majority of students. It enhanced their learning as it provided them with language practice opportunities that they would not otherwise have had, and reflect on their experience in a structured manner and on a regular basis. The students found the blog useful as a means of archiving their experiences and as a point of reference for the final write-up of their country notebook.

4.2 Research question 2: Do monthly activities and feedback help students’ engagement with the online journal?

Each monthly activity was followed up with feedback consisting of a brief commentary on the student’s blog, and an email with the rubric and selected descriptors highlighted according to the student’s performance.

Students generally found the feedback useful to improve on subsequent posts (Table 1) and regular contributors deemed the rubric more useful than a general comment. Nonetheless,

Table 1

Students’ opinion on the feedback provided for each monthly activity

Eight out of the eleven students thought the monthly activities kept them broadly focused on task both in terms of time (monthly deadline) and topic (specific areas to be covered). As shown in Table 2, their initial motivation for contributing to the blog was not so much to keep a log of their experiences but to be eligible for the 20% grading towards their final country notebook mark and to get feedback on their progress. Figure 3 illustrates students’ motivational journey. During the interviews, students clearly stated they would not have engaged with the online journal to the same extent if the monthly activities had not been rewarded by grading. Only towards the end of the academic year did they fully realise the value of the online journal activity and highly recommended its implementation for future cohorts as such a personal record gives them the opportunity to look back at their year, surprise themselves with some of their thoughts from the first few months and be critical of their level of French at the start of the year (based on comments from all seven interviewed students). Without the monthly activities and the associated grading, blogs in the main would have been rather bare, just like many students’ diaries were heretofore. These findings show the importance of building adequate incentives into the process of completing an online journal so that students fully engage with it and are subsequently able to realise the value of the activity.

Fig. 3

Students’ motivational journey

Table 2

Students’ opinions of the monthly activities

4.3 Research question 3: Is the study visit a suitable context for a student online journal?

Notwithstanding the variable levels of participation and depth of reflection, the unequivocal enthusiasm and endorsement from interviewees for the re-iteration of the blog while on a study visit is evidence that the study visit context is suitable for online journaling. Participants found it a more interesting and relevant form of assignment than “traditional” forms of assignments as illustrated by the top two statements in Table 3 and the following excerpts: “it was a more exciting way of submitting work than a normal word document assignments” (Alexandra), “I was happy to have a modern form of assignment” (Gerry), “it was more interesting than a regular assignment so you went back to it more easily, it didn’t feel like a regular assignment” (Kim). The online journal is a vehicle for foreign language writing practice and for reflection.

Table 3

Students’ first feelings at the prospect of creating an online journal

Also noteworthy is the potential for social learning. In particular, students who had invited their peers to follow their blog, found it helpful to see how others tackled the monthly activities. It was not about plagiarising each other’s contributions, “it’s not an exam, it’s our own personal reflection based on our own experiences” (Margot). Reading someone else’s post can clarify task expectations and thereby improve the quality of submissions. Alexandra stated that seeing other students’ blogs “gave me ideas, if they were telling a particular experience that was similar to myself, I would think, oh that’s a good idea”. Opting to follow somebody’s blog triggers an email alert as soon as that person updates their blog. Students located in different cities and universities could read about challenges faced by their peers and feel reassured that others were experiencing similar difficulties as expressed by Margot:

Interestingly, while students are in regular contact via Facebook, it does not seem to be a platform used to discuss university matters. It is in this context that Walter suggested setting up a section of the blog as a forum accessible to students from different years and aimed at exchanging information and experiences on practical issues (e.g. banking, phone and internet setup). The potential social learning benefits of the blog remind educators that the learning environment needs to be designed with sufficient flexibility to cater for individual preferences, from those eager to learn from each other, such as Margot and Walter, to those who tend to be more reluctant to share personal experiences with their peers, as illustrated by Denise’s comment:

4.4 Research question 4: What are the opportunities and constraints for implementation?

If the online journal is a means of enhancing the student learning experience, it is not just because it is a way of evaluating reflective writing, but it is also an opportunity to communicate with the learner at regular intervals (Strudler & Wetzel, Reference Strudler and Wetzel2008; Joyes et al., Reference Joyes, Gray and Hartnell-Young2010), particularly as in this study, the learner is off-campus for an entire academic year. An excerpt from Alexandra illustrates this particular feature of the online journal:

All students in the study stated that using technology such as blogs is an important part of their education. Nine had no such previous experience while two had created a blog before as part of their secondary level education. Most enjoyed learning how to use the non-proprietary blogging platform and found it had enhanced their technology skills for the future (Table 4).

Table 4

Students’ opinion in relation to the non-proprietary blogging platform

The constraints outlined here are based on the coordinator’s observations and reflections. In the initial implementation of the online study, the aim was for students to develop an e-portfolio, a technically more demanding exercise due to the requirement for media-rich content. Soon it became apparent students were at best uploading pictures and including hyperlinks. Only towards the end of the academic year did some students include various media such as video clips outlining their personal experiences (posted on YouTube), photos, or web links. Expectations for the regular integration of more diverse media were unrealistic given the level of in-class preparation and the marks available for the online journal. While the variety of media contributes to a more attractive journal, key priorities for the blog were to encourage students to reflect on their experiences, record their reflections and maintain a line of communication with their coordinator. These objectives were achieved.

Undoubtedly, the process of designing rubrics is worthwhile. It forces the lecturer to reflect on the precise nature of the existing learning outcomes and identify what might differentiate a good narrative from a weaker one. Rubrics are useful tools to provide thorough feedback and avoid the writing up of similar commentaries on common areas of weakness from student to student. They can be progressively adjusted to ensure a greater match between the assigned task, the desired learning outcomes and the evaluation process.

In spite of these cohorts being unusually small, one of the main constraints identified by the researcher, as a coordinator, is the time required to read students’ posts, react and provide constructive formative feedback. Another challenge is to ensure all language groups benefit from a similar level of formative feedback, or issues of inequity will inevitably arise in the rolling out of online journals.